Problem Solved

Seeing as you know fine well that there are Christians all over the world and not just in the southern states of America, you clearly have something against Chrisians in general going by your comment there.

So you ask for everyone to "just accept" you (gays), yet you attack Chrisians like that?

I think if i was gay and looking for everyone to "just accept us" I wouldn't be attacking anyone else let alone Christians.

Problem Solved

*sigh* I was kind of hoping the site was real just for the sake of there being a collective of stupid people to troll, but alas it is a fake. Very convincing parody, though, if it weren't for the whistleblowers :p

Accepted Solution

Problem Solved

One of their signatures is probably illegal in the UK, I have no problem with them believing the world is flat, but if they tolerate that kind of signature and that kind of person then they are disgusting people.

Seeing as you know fine well that there are Christians all over the world and not just in the southern states of America, you clearly have something against Chrisians in general going by your comment there.

So you ask for everyone to "just accept" you (gays), yet you attack Chrisians like that?

I think if i was gay and looking for everyone to "just accept us" I wouldn't be attacking anyone else let alone Christians.

Actually, you took EVERYTHING I wrote in the wrong way. There is no need to bring LGBT into this.

I meant the minority of red necks that are Christian are this dumb. I didn't say all Christian's, again I meant the RED NECKS. I suggest you go and sit on your porch and continue chewing that hay, and think about what you have said.

I'm really fudging offended by what you have just said. Ridiculous. Plus I think you would be surprised at how many Christian's are homophobic, so you need to take that comment back. You're talking out your backside.

Seeing as you know fine well that there are Christians all over the world and not just in the southern states of America, you clearly have something against Christians in general going by your comment there.

So you ask for everyone to "just accept" you (gays), yet you attack Christians like that?

I think if i was gay and looking for everyone to "just accept us" I wouldn't be attacking anyone else let alone Christians.

Actually, you took EVERYTHING I wrote in the wrong way. What you said was "RED NECK CHRISTIANS"this too me is calling ALL Christians red necks, I can't see how it would be otherwise seeing as that IS all you wrote.

There is no need to bring LGBT into this. I didn't, I simply brought up what you said in that thread which was something like - "why wont they just accept us".

I meant the minority of red necks that are Christian are this dumb. I didn't say all Christian's, Yet it would appear that you did mean all Christians seeing as this is all you wrote "red neck Christian's!"

I'm really fudging offended by what you have just said. Like what?

Ridiculous. Plus I think you would be surprised at how many Christian's are homophobic, So you slander them ALL, yet criticise others for doing the same too LGBT?

so you need to take that comment back. Take What back, pointing out hypocrisy and name calling?

Why do you need to bring LGBT up everywhere? Seriously! Again, I didn't, seriously!

What you said was "RED NECK CHRISTIANS"this too me is calling ALL Christians red necks, I can't see how it would be otherwsie seeing as that IS all you wrote.

That's because you choose the bleakest outlook.

If I say nothing but "purple cars" am I now somehow stating that all cars are purple? No.

Is it more likely that I am referring to the subset of cars that are purple? Yes.

Don't try to lessen what she ment, its right there for everyone too see, and seeing as she used a derogatory term "Red Necks", then there is no need for me or anyone else to choose the "bleakest outlook" at all. She already set it out that way all by herself.

Granted that the term "Red Neck" isn't the most offensive out of the lot, but it is still offensive and she still put it in an offensive way.

Yet I'm the one who she is demanding apologises too her for pointing this plain and simple fact out.

EDIT: She could of course ammend what she had wrote to clear it up, but seeing as that would involve admitting her "mistake" i doubt it will happen, but I've been wrong plenty of time, so we shall see.

What you said was "RED NECK CHRISTIANS"this too me is calling ALL Christians red necks, I can't see how it would be otherwsie seeing as that IS all you wrote.

That's because you choose the bleakest outlook.

If I say nothing but "purple cars" am I now somehow stating that all cars are purple? No.

Is it more likely that I am referring to the subset of cars that are purple? Yes.

Don't try to lessen what she ment, its right there for everyone too see, and seeing as she used a derogatory term "Red Necks", then there is no need for me or anyone else to choose the "bleakest outlook" at all. She already set it out that way all by herself.

Granted that the term "Red Neck" isn't the most offensive out of the lot, but it is still offensive and she still put it in an offensive way.

Yet I'm the one who she is demanding apologises too her for pointing this plain and simple fact out.

EDIT: She could of course ammend what she had wrote to clear it up, but seeing as that would involve admitting her "mistake" i doubt it will happen, but I've been wrong plenty of time, so we shall see.

No, it was you that chose the bleakest disambiguation, and the fault is yours because you chose the least likely option. Made worse by your continued arguing despite her attempts to correct you.

"Red neck Christians" can be ambiguous if you really want it to be, although anyone with an ounce of common sense will assume she means the sub-set of Christians that are red necks, rather than making a ridiculous sweeping statemant about all Christians being red necks.